17 ms·

> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that

by slibhb 2y ago

> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!

sapphicsnail 2y ago
I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
- rtpg 2y ago
  I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders". Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue. [0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
- tetromino_ 2y ago
  > I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ... Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one. I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I don't see the paradox. You can consider some people idiots and find it condemnable for idiots to be kidnapped in vans or have their visas revoked. If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        > These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        'Considering some people idiots' is intolerance. Tolerating that kind of intolerance in the name of free speech in the marketplace of ideas or whatever can allow that intolerance to gain traction such that intolerance becomes a dominant mode of thinking, via tolerating people. Is that not the paradox?
  - davorak 2y ago
    > free speech absolutist An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc. Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
    - slg 2y ago
      You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech" and once that happens the term has lost all meaning.
      - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
        2y ago
  - PieTime 2y ago
    You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful. I don’t support any forms of violence, and framing is very important because it leads to peace activists being conflated with war mongering. Israel fascism is at the very heart of why free speech is being banned. https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD
    - spwa4 2y ago
      I hate the implication you're making, especially since reality is exactly opposite. Israel's system cannot reasonably be classified as apartheid ... and Palestine's system cannot reasonably be classified as anything BUT apartheid. You definitely ARE legally segregated according to religion in Palestine, and you are not in Israel. Exactly the opposite of your claim. Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      There is less apartheid in Israel than in every other surrounding country with quite a large margin for that matter. You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous. But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      > You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful You say, as you slander your opposition. If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  This kind of response reinforces the parent's concern. Expressing concern for the erosion of free speech rights doesn't make one a right wing fanatic just because they don't mention every other political issue in the exact same comment.
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    The free speech absolutists were always criticized because of their hypocrisy, not because of their ideology. At least the people saying there should be limits to free speech are clear and impartial as to where those limits should be, supported by laws and regulations.
    - soraminazuki 2y ago
      > clear and impartial as to where those limits should be This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
      - spiderfarmer 2y ago
        Focus your energy on the clear abuses of power by the current regime, instead of hypotheticals and edge cases in the system you once had. The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system. When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power. And trust is now at a minimum. You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
        soraminazuki 2y ago
        That current regime is using the exact same machinery that you're advocating for to suppress freedoms, and it seems to me that your solution is to make it more ripe for abuse. This doesn't make any sense. And no, we're not talking about "hypotheticals" here when the abuse is happening right before our eyes. Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.
- eli_gottlieb 2y ago
  Then you're not looking.
- milesrout 2y ago
  Nobody is banning books. Removing inappropriate material from school libraries isn't book banning. Have you seen some of the books that are being removed? That books with graphic depictions of aren't appropriate for children is a view perfectly compatible with strong support for freedom of expression.
  - selfhoster 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - sham1 2y ago
    Okay, but counterpoint: why don't these school libraries also remove for example the Bible, a work known for extremely graphic content, eroticism, calls to kill based on one's tribe and doing stuff like working on the Sabbath. It's also a book explicitly meant for indoctrinating children into a given religion, or actually one of two religions! These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      Because the bible teaches hypocrisy, a very important skill that will help create future leaders.
    - milesrout 2y ago
      Because it is an historically important work that is necessary to have some understanding of to understand large parts of history. Its purpose also is not indoctrination or titillation.
    - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
      Counterpoint, they do. What public elementary school has copies of the bible? Schools are terrified of anything re ligious.
      - sham1 2y ago
        Well apparently at least public school libraries in Utah's Davis County[0]. To their credit, they did actually ban it due to vulgarity and violence, so at least they were principled in that sense, but then the book was brought back due to backlash. [0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-district-reversal-bible-school-libraries/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>
- kopirgan 2y ago
  Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.
    - gmueckl 2y ago
      Germany does guarantees free speech in article 5 of its constitution.
      - fahhem 2y ago
        Clearly except when it's about Israel
      - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
        It also states it might be limited by law. So you can’t promote nazism and call it free speech.
        PartiallyTyped 2y ago
        And you can’t publicly talk about state secrets, so you can’t call it free speech.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        sure you can. You're likely not granted clearance or in the military. Private citizens don't have a concept of "state secrets". But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
        muddi900 2y ago
- rockskon 2y ago
  That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.
  - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cactacea 2y ago
      This is easy to find, precious. https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-bed1a412f3efaa0f371da8e8c89f4975 https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-...
    - ojbyrne 2y ago
      They've gone further back than gay rights. https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-reportedly-moves-to-ban-jackie-robinson-biography-from-naval-academy-library-235013259.html https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-re...
- cavisne 2y ago
  Glenn greenwald comes to mind.
- acidmath 2y ago
  For books depicting sex acts, banning such books from public elementary and middle school libraries is reasonable. Is it not? Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?
  - decremental 2y ago
    [dead]
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Books with rainbows are getting banned under the same policy. Rainbows!
    - acidmath 2y ago
      Where is this happening? URL?
      - spiderfarmer 2y ago
        Guess: Saudi Arabia or the USA? The fact that you have to ask says it all.
        acidmath 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - navane 2y ago
        First hit when googling "Books with rainbows are getting banned" https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-childrens-book-with-rainbow-cover/ https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
        acidmath 2y ago
        [flagged]
- Gud 2y ago
  I wouldn’t call myself an “absolutist” of anything, except perhaps regarding free political speech. Child porn is pretty much where I draw the line, and frankly even that is a fuzzy line. I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.
lovich 2y ago
> Some people actually just have principles! Right, but words like `absolutist` mean something really strong that is not achievable in reality, and I don't think you would disagree very much that the majority of self professed free speech absolutists like Musk, do not actually hold anything near such a view. This is actually due to an attack on the weakness of free speech. The zone is being flooded with shit, as the phrase goes, to the point that words don't mean anything. The moment a term starts having some meaning that people can derive direction from, the propagandists start using the term incorrectly everywhere.
rtpg 2y ago
You can support free speech in the abstract, end up defending certain people whose views you hate, and still come up with a good amount of respect. The ACLU is able to maintain respect despite helping some pretty terrible people in court. There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst people in the world need _a_ lawyer, your local fascist doesn't need a booster on Twitter. There's a spectrum and subjectivity here of course. "Free speech" has turned into a fun little bad faith thing to throw into arguments where it (for most people) doesn't belong. And even for fellow travelers, these people arguing in bad faith tend to throw in some other stupid garbage into their arguments! So it gets a bad rap, as an indicator that an argument is about to get stupid.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
least 2y ago
> The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. This isn't really a recent development but I think I understand what you mean. Authoritarians, regardless of their political leanings, try and sow distrust in free speech in order to garner support for advancing their agenda. Currently, the "right" is using "free speech" as a tool to push back against the "woke agenda." So now "free speech" is becoming faux pas, at least in certain circles. Mentioning it as something you value without some long preface to explain yourself now associates you with a certain group of people, whether that group actually values free speech or not.
abeppu 2y ago
I think the swerve that makes free speech absolutism less credible now than a generation ago is the prominence that lies and misinformation have gained in the discourse. I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK producing literature bc that's the cost for _everyone_ being able to speak. But it's much harder to make the argument that intentional lies and misinformation deserve the same protections as good faith expressions of minority views. When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before. Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech. > When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious? There is enough literature here to really weight this argument and the sad result is that you often defend the speech of scoundrels but it still is the better result. Some people say it is natural to dislike different skin colors. The logic of your argument would generally be seen as short sighted and it certainly is in regards to freedom of speech. Again, a bit of literature exposure helps.
  - abeppu 2y ago
    My claim is that intentionally dishonest speech shouldn't obviously enjoy the same protections as earnest speech. > That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before. That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State... - In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false. - The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity. - The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity. - Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies. - The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required. - The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth. Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth." We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods. If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.
croes 2y ago
A what do they when they don’t like it? The once who claimed there is a speech police implement speech police and all what the vocal free speech persons do is don’t like it? Did the address it at the president or do they fear consequences?

by slibhb 2y ago

sapphicsnail 2y ago

I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.

rtpg 2y ago
I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders". Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue. [0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
tetromino_ 2y ago
> I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ... Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one. I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I don't see the paradox. You can consider some people idiots and find it condemnable for idiots to be kidnapped in vans or have their visas revoked. If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      > These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      'Considering some people idiots' is intolerance. Tolerating that kind of intolerance in the name of free speech in the marketplace of ideas or whatever can allow that intolerance to gain traction such that intolerance becomes a dominant mode of thinking, via tolerating people. Is that not the paradox?
- davorak 2y ago
  > free speech absolutist An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc. Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
  - slg 2y ago
    You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech" and once that happens the term has lost all meaning.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
      - 2y ago
- PieTime 2y ago
  You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful. I don’t support any forms of violence, and framing is very important because it leads to peace activists being conflated with war mongering. Israel fascism is at the very heart of why free speech is being banned. https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD
  - spwa4 2y ago
    I hate the implication you're making, especially since reality is exactly opposite. Israel's system cannot reasonably be classified as apartheid ... and Palestine's system cannot reasonably be classified as anything BUT apartheid. You definitely ARE legally segregated according to religion in Palestine, and you are not in Israel. Exactly the opposite of your claim. Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    There is less apartheid in Israel than in every other surrounding country with quite a large margin for that matter. You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous. But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    > You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful You say, as you slander your opposition. If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?
soraminazuki 2y ago
This kind of response reinforces the parent's concern. Expressing concern for the erosion of free speech rights doesn't make one a right wing fanatic just because they don't mention every other political issue in the exact same comment.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  The free speech absolutists were always criticized because of their hypocrisy, not because of their ideology. At least the people saying there should be limits to free speech are clear and impartial as to where those limits should be, supported by laws and regulations.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    > clear and impartial as to where those limits should be This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      Focus your energy on the clear abuses of power by the current regime, instead of hypotheticals and edge cases in the system you once had. The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system. When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power. And trust is now at a minimum. You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
      - soraminazuki 2y ago
        That current regime is using the exact same machinery that you're advocating for to suppress freedoms, and it seems to me that your solution is to make it more ripe for abuse. This doesn't make any sense. And no, we're not talking about "hypotheticals" here when the abuse is happening right before our eyes. Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
Then you're not looking.
milesrout 2y ago
Nobody is banning books. Removing inappropriate material from school libraries isn't book banning. Have you seen some of the books that are being removed? That books with graphic depictions of aren't appropriate for children is a view perfectly compatible with strong support for freedom of expression.
- selfhoster 2y ago
  [flagged]
- sham1 2y ago
  Okay, but counterpoint: why don't these school libraries also remove for example the Bible, a work known for extremely graphic content, eroticism, calls to kill based on one's tribe and doing stuff like working on the Sabbath. It's also a book explicitly meant for indoctrinating children into a given religion, or actually one of two religions! These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Because the bible teaches hypocrisy, a very important skill that will help create future leaders.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    Because it is an historically important work that is necessary to have some understanding of to understand large parts of history. Its purpose also is not indoctrination or titillation.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    Counterpoint, they do. What public elementary school has copies of the bible? Schools are terrified of anything re ligious.
    - sham1 2y ago
      Well apparently at least public school libraries in Utah's Davis County[0]. To their credit, they did actually ban it due to vulgarity and violence, so at least they were principled in that sense, but then the book was brought back due to backlash. [0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-district-reversal-bible-school-libraries/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>
kopirgan 2y ago
Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!
- nine_k 2y ago
  Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.
  - gmueckl 2y ago
    Germany does guarantees free speech in article 5 of its constitution.
    - fahhem 2y ago
      Clearly except when it's about Israel
    - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
      It also states it might be limited by law. So you can’t promote nazism and call it free speech.
      - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
        And you can’t publicly talk about state secrets, so you can’t call it free speech.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        sure you can. You're likely not granted clearance or in the military. Private citizens don't have a concept of "state secrets". But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
        muddi900 2y ago
rockskon 2y ago
That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cactacea 2y ago
    This is easy to find, precious. https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-bed1a412f3efaa0f371da8e8c89f4975 https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-...
  - ojbyrne 2y ago
    They've gone further back than gay rights. https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-reportedly-moves-to-ban-jackie-robinson-biography-from-naval-academy-library-235013259.html https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-re...
cavisne 2y ago
Glenn greenwald comes to mind.
acidmath 2y ago
For books depicting sex acts, banning such books from public elementary and middle school libraries is reasonable. Is it not? Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Books with rainbows are getting banned under the same policy. Rainbows!
  - acidmath 2y ago
    Where is this happening? URL?
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      Guess: Saudi Arabia or the USA? The fact that you have to ask says it all.
      - acidmath 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - navane 2y ago
      First hit when googling "Books with rainbows are getting banned" https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-childrens-book-with-rainbow-cover/ https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
      - acidmath 2y ago
        [flagged]
Gud 2y ago
I wouldn’t call myself an “absolutist” of anything, except perhaps regarding free political speech. Child porn is pretty much where I draw the line, and frankly even that is a fuzzy line. I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.

lovich 2y ago

> Some people actually just have principles! Right, but words like `absolutist` mean something really strong that is not achievable in reality, and I don't think you would disagree very much that the majority of self professed free speech absolutists like Musk, do not actually hold anything near such a view. This is actually due to an attack on the weakness of free speech. The zone is being flooded with shit, as the phrase goes, to the point that words don't mean anything. The moment a term starts having some meaning that people can derive direction from, the propagandists start using the term incorrectly everywhere.

rtpg 2y ago

You can support free speech in the abstract, end up defending certain people whose views you hate, and still come up with a good amount of respect. The ACLU is able to maintain respect despite helping some pretty terrible people in court. There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst people in the world need _a_ lawyer, your local fascist doesn't need a booster on Twitter. There's a spectrum and subjectivity here of course. "Free speech" has turned into a fun little bad faith thing to throw into arguments where it (for most people) doesn't belong. And even for fellow travelers, these people arguing in bad faith tend to throw in some other stupid garbage into their arguments! So it gets a bad rap, as an indicator that an argument is about to get stupid.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

least 2y ago

> The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. This isn't really a recent development but I think I understand what you mean. Authoritarians, regardless of their political leanings, try and sow distrust in free speech in order to garner support for advancing their agenda. Currently, the "right" is using "free speech" as a tool to push back against the "woke agenda." So now "free speech" is becoming faux pas, at least in certain circles. Mentioning it as something you value without some long preface to explain yourself now associates you with a certain group of people, whether that group actually values free speech or not.

abeppu 2y ago

I think the swerve that makes free speech absolutism less credible now than a generation ago is the prominence that lies and misinformation have gained in the discourse. I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK producing literature bc that's the cost for _everyone_ being able to speak. But it's much harder to make the argument that intentional lies and misinformation deserve the same protections as good faith expressions of minority views. When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
raxxorraxor 2y ago
That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before. Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech. > When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious? There is enough literature here to really weight this argument and the sad result is that you often defend the speech of scoundrels but it still is the better result. Some people say it is natural to dislike different skin colors. The logic of your argument would generally be seen as short sighted and it certainly is in regards to freedom of speech. Again, a bit of literature exposure helps.
- abeppu 2y ago
  My claim is that intentionally dishonest speech shouldn't obviously enjoy the same protections as earnest speech. > That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before. That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State... - In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false. - The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity. - The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity. - Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies. - The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required. - The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth. Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth." We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods. If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.

croes 2y ago

A what do they when they don’t like it? The once who claimed there is a speech police implement speech police and all what the vocal free speech persons do is don’t like it? Did the address it at the president or do they fear consequences?